News Topic
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:18 pm
From a recent news article
For some if the victim is identified to a latent print they will say the victim has been eliminated. What they really mean is the latent print has been identified to a set of elimination prints. Or the latent prints have been eliminated (identified) as a source for the real suspect.
I have seen the word elimination to equal an identification and I have seen it used as term for exclusion.
NBD---As this pedantic person will say--"it is just semantics". I would still say it is better to id the suspects instead of elminating them.
Would it not be better to identify a possible suspect instead of eliminate them. If the suspects prints are not at the scene does that mean they did not commit the crime? Hmmmmm. As John said one timeHuff said obtaining "fingerprints and DNA is part of any homicide investigation," and Officer Leland Ashley said gathering fingerprints is sometimes done to eliminate possible suspects.
The elimination thing can get quite sticky as it is used in a couple of different ways.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
For some if the victim is identified to a latent print they will say the victim has been eliminated. What they really mean is the latent print has been identified to a set of elimination prints. Or the latent prints have been eliminated (identified) as a source for the real suspect.
I have seen the word elimination to equal an identification and I have seen it used as term for exclusion.
NBD---As this pedantic person will say--"it is just semantics". I would still say it is better to id the suspects instead of elminating them.